Section 234C of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.425

Section 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 425 (Interest for deferment of advance tax) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 425 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 234C is CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (349 ITR 98), cited in 818 of the 6,043 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 234C

CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
349 ITR 98 · 2012 · High Court
818
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
314 ITR 62 · 2009 · Supreme Court
739
citing judgments

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

Essae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
366 ITR 408 · 2014 · High Court
519
citing judgments

An employer's delayed remittance of employees' contributions to provident fund (PF) or Employees' State Insurance (ESI) is deductible if the payment is made before the due date for filing the income tax return under section 139(1), applying the provisions of section 43B and notwithstanding section 36(1)(va).

CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
252 ITR 1 · 2001 · Supreme Court
452
citing judgments

Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory. Tax statutes are to be interpreted strictly, allowing no room for purposive interpretation.

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC); and Vodafone International Holdings B.V v. Union of India
341 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
295
citing judgments

Legitimate tax planning is permissible, allowing taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize tax liabilities while respecting the "look at test" for transaction genuineness and the separate entity principle in corporate taxation. The source of funds for treaty-beneficial structures does not automatically invalidate the transaction.

CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.
55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court
273
citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO
43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

Judgments on Section 234C

Tml Drivelines Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1729/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1729/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) बिाम/ Tata Motors Ltd., Acit 2(1)(2), (Successor To Tml Aayakar Bhawan Drivelines Limited) Mumbai 400020 V. Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaach7625P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Hari Iyer Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1729/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 07.12.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-3/It-46/Acit-2(1)(1)/16-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year(Ay) 2006-07, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2006-07. I.T.A. No.1729/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri Hari IyerFor Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 234DSection 250Section 254

The Beml Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1107/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. The Beml Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Income Tax M/S. Beml Bengaluru Officer, Vs. Complex, New Thippasandra, Ward 4 [2] [2], Bangalore – 560 075. Bangalore. Pan: Aaalt0689E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Bangalore Dated 31.01.2018 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under. “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] 4 [Hereinafter Called Short Cit(A)], Bengaluru In So Far It Is Against The Appellant Society Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Society'S Case. 2. The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As The Appellant Society Was Not Afforded A Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing, Which Is In Grave Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Appellant Society No Assessable Income/Loss Of The Residential Layout Activities Transaction & Carried Out For No Gain/Loss Basis & U/S. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (Hereinafter Called As Short Act) Not Applicable For Treating A Special Provision For Full Value Of Consideration On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 4. The Learned Cit (A), Is Not Justified In Law In Law In Confirming The Addition Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Of Rs. 1,34,08,000, Being Income Of Long Term Capital Gains Under The Provisions Of Section 50C Of The Act, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 234BSection 50C

Umesh A Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1936/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1936/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) बिाम/ Mr. Umesh A Mishra Ito 10(3)(3), B/401/402, 2Nd Floor, Raheja Sherwood, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Behind Hub Mall Mumbai-400020 Western Express Highway Goregaon, East, Mumbai-400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aagpm0190F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Neha Paranjape Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1936/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.12.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-54/16-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2013-14, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 22.02.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2013-14. I.T.A. No.1936/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Neha ParanjapeFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(C)